“My central point here is that if heresy charges can be leveled on the basis of ‘ambiguous’ language, then the bapterians have only succeeded in indicting the Westminster Confession. It is the Westminster Standards that say both sacraments are effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers. It is the Westminster Confession that says one of the things signified by baptism is regeneration. It the Westminster Confession that says the things signified by baptism (among which we include regeneration) are really exhibited and conferred by baptism at the time of the effectual call. So fine. Don’t use the language of baptismal regeneration if you don’t want to. I don’t want to either. That is not a problem. But it is a problem when you reluctance to use that language yourself prevents you from reading a seventeenth century document in its historical setting.”
Have 'Em Delivered
Write to the Editor